This is my blog. Often times there's things I say where 500 YouTube characters isn't enough for a proper response. Plus, then I don't need to say things 50 times on 50 different videos. I can also post other stuff here...like links to download music! So now I won't have people hitting me up all the time.
Lastly, I also made this blog so people could get to know me and come to understand how I think and why I do and say the things that I do.

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Excuse me sir, but how would you like your shit wrecked this evening?

I've noticed two trends that emerge on my blog.

Either I'm posting debates with someone with regards to Black Sabbath, or I'm posting Thin Lizzy videos and links. I much prefer the latter. This is why I respect the Thin Lizzy fans, Thin Lizzy had tons of lineup changes, and even toured without Phil Lynott. I know tons of people that don't like the "reformed" Thin Lizzy, but at least theirs an element of respect to what they do. I find it appalling that REAL lineups of Black Sabbath, successful and legitmate lineups even, don't get that respect. The double standard blows my mind.

Recently a YouTuber and member of the Black Sabbath fan forums named "thesithempire", decided to engage (or maybe enrage) me in a "debate" about the sanctity and legitmacy of the Black Sabbath name, particular when it involves lineups not including the original 4 members. I could get into the history of Black Sabbath, but that would be long and boring. Sabbath, like Lizzy, and like many other bands, have had tons of lineup changes, but kept the name and kept making new music. Maybe the music wasn't always the exact same style, but it was certainly a quality product, at least in my eyes.

Unlike some of my infamous YouTube debates with people. "Thesithempire" is actually a relatively good speaker, seems well informed, can use the english language, and is probably a decent guy. Yet, after this debate ended (I had to end it because he just got too annoying as you'll see in a minute) I came across feeling the same way I always feel after I have to ban someone from my account...like the fucker must be out of his mind. You're probably thinking how the hell can that be, especially since I actually praised his intellect before even bringing it up. Well, I'm going to post the convo. I'm interested in what you Sabbath fans have to say. Some may even agree with Sith's points, and that's fair. I personally even respect his opinion, but well...he got a little carried away...and I'll explain why I feel this way.

Mr. Sith started off with a reply to a comment I made months ago to another user saying that Black Sabbath didn't end in 1978 with the firing/leaving of Ozzy Osbourne. This is a fact. You might hate it but it's still a fact. It happened. His reply:

thesithempire @blacksabfan
"With all due respect, there are still many fans who believe that Black Sabbath finished in 1979, not because they hate Dio or the later albums (nor are they making statements about superiority), but because they define Black Sabbath as the unique synthesis of four men, Iommi, Butler, Ward and Osbourne, three of which have said in interviews that they agree, and the fourth, Iommi, who recently said (on his website) that Heaven and Hell have﻿ been playing for 30 thirty years. 1 day ago

blacksabfan (uploader) @thesithempire
Well there's what you believe, and there's the truth. Truth is, Black Sabbath existed in other entities besides the first one. I don't consider it any more unique or sacrosanct than any of the others, just different. Besides, listen to an interview from 1974, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1989, 1992, 1997, 2007, etc. Members have said different things depending on who they are nice with at the﻿ time. I don't think one interview or opinion truely clarifies anyone's position.

And for the 24930th time, I'm just asking why the double standard. No one has ever answered this question. Ever. No other bands that had lineup changes﻿ get debated as much as Sabbath as to whether output from certain lineups is more credible than another. This might come as a shock, but I don't feel Sabbath is in an way superior to other bands, that they merit an exception to this rule. I like Sabbath a lot, but I'm not some uber-fanboi that judges them by different rules than any other band. 1 day ago

thesithempire @blacksabfan:
There are many original Van Halen fans who disagree with the band carrying on under than name with another singer. A number of original AC/DC fans feel that way as well. So too Genesis fans, Moody Blues fans, etc., For many people, the original lineups of their favorite bands are special, in fact, sacrosanct. Personally, I love the﻿ later albums with Dio, Gillan and Hughes, but they're different bands, and deserve a different name to distinguish those significant differences. 1 day ago

blacksabfan (uploader) @thesithempire
And there's a lot of people who don't believe that with other bands. Even if people have a favorite lineup of bands such as Maiden, AC/DC, Van Halen, Purple, etc., there at least seems to be acceptance of the other lineups. Any hatred of certain lineups don't touch the people who continuely﻿ deny certain lineups of Sabbath...it's like some pathological need for people like you to stress over and over that the only legitmate lineup included Ozzy.

thesithempire @blacksabfan:
It's not about the legitimacy of a band. Of course, Iommi would move on with other musicians. It's about the sanctity of a name and what that name designates. Bands are not sports teams. They represent the musicians in the band, and if a significant change occurs and a band member departs contentiously (as opposed to his own will), then the name should change to reflect that. Would I want Iommi to carry on as﻿ Heaven and Hell with another singer if something happened to Dio? No.

blacksabfan (uploader) @thesithempire

Who the hell are you to decide the sanctity. Shouldn't that be up to the guy who, I don't know, LEGALLY OWNS THE NAME??? The only band member that MIGHT of left with any contention was Bill Ward. Ozzy got fired/left...but then signed his rights away. That's not﻿ the actions of a man who's contentious about leaving. If any band members had contention with Iommi owning it, why did any of them sign their rights away? They did that of their own will. That opinion doesn't make sense. 23 hours ago

thesithempire @blacksabfan:
In fairness to Ozzy, he has a very﻿ different story about that. (In fact, even Tony has a very different story to the one that most people have read about.) The truth of this whole split-up is not out there, but one thing is certain. Ozzy's firing was extremely contentious.
Just thought I'd clarify that point.

blacksabfan (uploader) @thesithempire
Again disagree. The actions described speak for themselves. Plus, your statement (the full truth isn't out there, but it was extremely contentious) How can you say it was "certainly contentious" if you don't know the full truth (which is in essence﻿ just the truth) to begin with? That doesn't even begin to make sense.
I thought I'd clarify THAT point. 6 hours ago

*I think I got him with that one...but again, that's just logic talking...there's more...we actually had like three different arguements going at once...

thesithempire @blacksabfan:
The truth is that things are rarely ever black and white. Iommi sought to change the name after Dio was fired, but management wouldn't hear of it -- which means that the Sabbath name on the later covers was not his wish or his design. The truth is that Bill Ward and Ozzy have consistently said that Black Sabbath is the original incarnation alone, and﻿ that Geezer Butler did tell Mick Wall: I always said if any of us ever left, it wouldnt be Black Sabbath anymore—and it wasnt. 1 day ago

blacksabfan (uploader) @thesithempire
Well if Iommi truly cared, he would of packed it in. For every quote you provide from the Reunion era when it was all good vibes among the original members, I can provide no less than 3 when Iommi quoted excitement/hope for a particular lineup of Sabbath.﻿ It's all to be taken in context. Ozzy and Ward have their biases, but I know there's been times when Geezer was quite enthuastic about Dio being in Sabbath, and Iommi (along with Cozy Powell) harped the Headless Cross era.
Lastly, why the fuck are you even arguing with me about this? It's not like I denied that I liked the original lineup the best. I actually do.﻿ That said, I'm not changing my mind, and I don't agree with your opinion. Seems pointless. It would be one thing if I was blatantly lying about some historical facts, but I'm not. I just see Black Sabbath as 40+ years of great music, and you see 15? Maybe 9 if you count just original music. I'm not a history rewriter. It is what it is. Like it or not. 1 day ago

*Trying to end it...maybe my tone is harsh but come on, can't we agree to disagree?

thesithempire @blacksabfan: I'm not arguing, I'm discussing. No need to be defensive. My point is simple. Fans﻿ have a legitimate cause to gripe over a band-name. And I never said you were *wrong* to view things as you do. If someone says the original lineup is solely Black Sabbath that doesn't mean we hate Dio and the later incarnations. Heck, I just bought H&H and Mob Rules for the fourth time (Sanctuary deluxe remasters). I'm just saying respect the views of others who differ from yours. 1 day ago

*This is his first part that actually sort of pissed me off. I've respected his views the whole time, but honestly this debate is on a 1974 Cali. Jam video. It's not really related and it's gone on long enough. That said, who the fuck is he to tell me to respect others views when he's shitting all over mine by trying to cram his opinion down my throat? Just a question.

blacksabfan (uploader) @thesithempire

That's where I have a problem. I post these things because I enjoy sharing my music collection. I'd rather have people comment on﻿ the actual video, than rehashing pointless debates about nothing that will be settled. Also, I'm not going around on other Sabbath videos forcing my opinion down on others, yet you and others seem to show up on mine and start these "discussions". I'm not interested in a "discussion" about what is/isn't Sabbath. ITS OFF TOPIC.
Secondly, I've had this same "discussion" in some form at least 50 times on here. It's fucking old, it's annoying, and frankly I don't give a flying fuck. I've gone as far to just delete posts when it crops up, but since yours is intelligible (although still off-topic) I decided to engage it. I said I don't agree. Let it go. I'm not disrespecting your opinion anymore than you're disrespecting mine by not letting go of this futile "discussion".﻿ It works both ways.

thesithempire @blacksabfan: True. But I brought it up﻿ because you said another poster who said Sabbath ended in 1979 had a "brain fart" or made a typo. I was only pointing out that some of us who are not Dio-haters believe the band ended in 1979. But I understand if you're not interested in such discussions. 21 hours ago.

*And now starts the passive-aggressive bullshit...I go on a rant about this later...but it begins here. I'm not interested, but he seems to think he's winning now because I'm backing off. So he just keeps right on coming...

blacksabfan @thesithempire

Again, probably on something I uploaded since you're trying to accuse me of starting it.
Black Sabbath didn't end in 1979. That's a fact. It's that simple. I have a history degree and I teach it, and I'm interested in facts. It doesn't matter how much value one lineup, or if something was lost/gained etc. Black Sabbath as a band, didn't stop making music in 1979. I get your viewpoint, but your viewpoints ARE NOT FACTS. Stop confusing the two.
As a warning to thesithempire and anyone else. I'm not here to fucking debate this shit. I'm not interested in what YOU (the general populace) think is or isn't Black Sabbath. It's been hashed out over and over again for the last goddamn 30 years. Anyone who wants to comment on the merits of the video, great. Anything else will just be deleted. I'm not entertaining this crap anymore...discuss it somewhere else.

thesithempire @blacksabfan:
It's your video and you can do as you want, but for you own well-being, you aught to examine your hostility. None of us have a personal stake in any of this. I can understand taking a hard stance against trolls. But you do yourself a disservice to get so angry over a few people who believe a certain way about a band. Ignore it. Why fuel a debate you don't want? On Youtube, it's common that people post OT responses. I don't﻿ see that it's worth giving yourself a heart-attack over.

*This put me over the edge. That passive aggressive bullshit. I said I don't want to discuss it, and he keeps going, as I make a harsh blanket statement saying to drop it and he comes back at me saying I have hostility issues. Aggressive right back to passive. "Oh, look at me, that mean Blacksabfan is being all mean and hostile to me...". No asshole. You're a troll that wants the last word, so when I have the audacity to defend my points (many of which he didn't even answer well, but just accused me of being defensive and hostile) you resort to the passive-aggressive routine. Fucker thinks he's smart, and probably uses this in every debate to wear the person down. I might be an asshole, but I don't resort to tricks like this, I just come out guns blazing and make a good point and throw a few curses in for emotion. I make this point known in my longest every Youtube reply (4 boxes).

blacksabfan (uploader) @thesithempire
You haven't seen my hostility. I'm not angry about what you believe. My patience has worn a bit thin that you CONTINUELY seem determined to make your irrevelant point featured here. You could of said it once, and I've said a couple times to let it go, but obviously you don't fucking﻿ get it. You keep harping on it and then expect me not to be a bit...well yeah, angry. I think that's completely reasonable. I've asked nicely to let it go, now I'm not going to be so nice.
So here's what I'm going to do, I'm going to just block you from﻿ every commenting again on ANYTHING of mine, because obviously you don't know when to fucking shut up. You're right, none of us have a personal stake, which is why I don't get why you are so determined to get the last word. You said your piece, I disagreed and would of been happy to let it go, but you keep on and on like it really matters to you that I understand you. I've understood your position the entire time.
You're one of those people that prefers to remember Sabbath as the original 4. That's fine. But you show up here like I'm brainwashing people into believing...the truth? Suggesting (and showing them) that there's more to Sabbath than 1970-1978. (I know, sounds terrible). I respect your opinion, but what I﻿ don't respect is how you keep bringing it up after I've said to let it go, and then making me out to be defensive and hostile? You serious? Pot calling the kettle black much?
Basically, you're a troll who like to play the passive-aggressive game. Someone who starts shit (but makes it look innocent), annoy the person with repeated asinine comments, and then when they make an effort to defend, accuse them of being hostile and say that they are the ones that are mental. I'll say it plain, I hate﻿ fuckers like you...because you think you should be able to get away with it everytime someone disagrees with you. Well, not this time asshole.﻿

That ended it. I hope. I really don't think I'm in any way out of line. I gave him chances to back off, but he didn't want to take them. Instead, he accused me of being hostile toward his viewpoints. No, I was hostile about how you presented them...over and over and over, and then fucking shit on mine and tried to make me think I wasn't somehow allowed to defend myself. That's the most blatant passive-aggressive chicken shit I've ever seen. Like I said, and I'll say it again, I hate those types of people. Those are the people in life you have to watch out for...they might seem nice, but they think they can do no wrong and if something does, it's someone else's fault. They troll around and pick on people, looking for reactions (and hey thats what I give, I'll admit it) and when they get one, they get aggressive until they totally get shit on, and then say "oh, now I'm a victim." Cut the horseshit. Anyone with a brain can see that and shouldn't give you an ounce of respect, not online or in real life.

Eat shit and die thesithempire. People like you don't deserve any respect. Oh, and not your viewpoints, those are fine. Just you, as a person.

35 comments:

Not to be a kiss-ass, BlackSabFan, but I'm in agreement with you. Facts are Facts. From 1970 to 1998 every album created, which featured lead guitarist Tony Iommi, bore the name "Black Sabbath" Sure, at one point Tony kicked around the thought of changing the name(I think around the time of Born Again, I do believe), however the name stuck. I think mostly due to record company pressure to keep the name for credibility purposes. Regardless, it should be known as Black Sabbath. Iommi owned the rights to the band, and still does. Whatever line-up changes took place between the time Osbourne was fired, and when they re-formed. Hell, you could make a strong case that Dio revived Sabbath's namesake at the time. I believe that Heaven and Hell is one of Sabbath's most sold albums out of their entire catalog. Look, I don't mind if others discredit what Sabbath produced post-Ozzy, but I don't understand why so many view the post-Ozzy era with such abomination.

I don't mind either Redbird, but more and more on the stuff I post, I see this same argument coming up. In fact, it happened again today. I don't know why these people are so adamant about making this point to me. I'm quite decided on where I stand and while I don't mind that some people choose to not give the time of day to any Sabbath after Ozzy, I don't know why they need to be mental about it and not let others enjoy it. It would be one thing, as you said, if I was blatantly lying about stuff, but I'm not. It's almost like they are acting as minions to Sharon Osbourne (who claimed her hubby's version of Sabbath is the only right one). It also takes away from the quality of all the posts, and just becomes a drag on the comment sections. So that's why I've had to resort to more deletion and banning. Of course then, people log on other names and call me some kind of anti-free speech Nazi, but I don't mind that so much. People seem to think I shouldn't be able to run my channel as I see fit. If they don't like it, then they can make their own and run it however they want.

I couldn't agree more blacksabfan. These people will always discredit whoever doesn't share their point of view. The thing that annoys me is that these ozzy era hard cores refuse to see the facts. That while the other eras of sabbath may have been different bands. It was still Black Sabbath. I favor the Ozzy and Dio eras but I give each era of the band equal respect. You can't change history.

Well, i personally don't like the band's sound after ozzy left.. I don't even like the sound of never say die and half of techn. ex.

The name should have no real change just cause the singer left, but still when someone asks me if i like sabbath and the put on heaven and hell i have to say 'yeah, the ozzy-years'.. So there is a diff in feeling i guess. It's hard to say something more logical than that, just a gutfeeling.